Gee the next time a man shouts how badly he wants to fuck my ass in an alleyway I'll just politely decline and let him know the attention is unwelcome, that's a good idea that definitely won't get me raped.

I don't think that street harrassment necessarily merits jail time or whatever but it should definitely be a misdemeanour and it should definitely get his ass fired.

there is a quantifiable difference between wolf whistles and street harrassment which happens every day and someone genuinely prepositioning you. Maybe there's a chilling effect on the latter but frankly that isn't the worst thing in the world either.

So I despise call out culture in general but making it a misdemeanour, snapping a photo of Mr. Asshole and posting it online and launching social media campaigns is probably the best way to discourage it that I can think of. It's one of those things where it'd be very difficult to prosecute, but criminalization can act as a deterrent nonetheless.

Oh, trust me. I've tried. It almost never ends well. Usually they get offended, start calling me names and a few times threatened or tried to intimidate me. It's never worth it as it only takes one fucked up guy to seriously fuck me up. I'm five foot nothing, 105 pounds. Yeah, I'm fucked.

It's like being next to a bear. 9 times out of 10 they will just snarl, try to intimidate you and then walk away, but are you really going to do anything that risks setting off a bear?

Click to expand...

Then criminalize all kind of aggressive and unwanted interaction. Criminalize you offending someone in the internet. Criminalize someone being aggressive with the cashier. Criminalize someone honking and shouting at you in traffic. Make it a misdemeanor for fans to be aggressive in sports matches. If online sexual harassment is a crime, and it involves someone messaging you just once, make it any kind of aggressive and unwanted internet interaction a crime. Including ending the Twitter Lynching Mob some people are so fond of.

The logic is the same. The possibility of escalation is the same if not much greater. Why forbid one, and allow the others, just because most of the victims in the other are male? You think there is the a great difference in size and training (which is another thing, any kind of martial arts training makes size significantly less useful) between men and women, and not men and men too?

If the worry is about physical violence, then the logic holds. "It never ends well", I mean if we're going with anedoctal experience, I've seen way more fights break out between people in traffic and men in sports matches than escalation between men and women in the described situation.

It's interesting how puritanism appears in such moments. Sexual violence is somehow much more horrendous than physical violence, and thus, interactions with any sexual connotation must be much tightly controlled and regulated. People accused of sexual crimes must have their rights of due process cut, where overwhelming evidence should be replace with preponderance if not outright an inquisitorial system where one is guilty until proven innocent. And yet I can't see anyone telling me that should be so, besides the puritanical thought "anything involving sex is much, much worse".

Then criminalize all kind of aggressive and unwanted interaction. Criminalize you offending someone in the internet. Criminalize someone being aggressive with the cashier. Criminalize someone honking and shouting at you in traffic. Make it a misdemeanor for fans to be aggressive in sports matches. If online sexual harassment is a crime, and it involves someone messaging you just once, make it any kind of aggressive and unwanted internet interaction a crime. Including ending the Twitter Lynching Mob some people are so fond of.

The logic is the same. The possibility of escalation is the same if not much greater. Why forbid one, and allow the others, just because most of the victims in the other are male? You think there is the a great difference in size and training (which is another thing, any kind of martial arts training makes size significantly less useful) between men and women, and not men and men too?

If the worry is about physical violence, then the logic holds. "It never ends well", I mean if we're going with anedoctal experience, I've seen way more fights break out between people in traffic and men in sports matches than escalation between men and women in the described situation.

It's interesting how puritanism appears in such moments. Sexual violence is somehow much more horrendous than physical violence, and thus, interactions with any sexual connotation must be much tightly controlled and regulated. People accused of sexual crimes must have their rights of due process cut, where overwhelming evidence should be replace with preponderance if not outright an inquisitorial system where one is guilty until proven innocent. And yet I can't see anyone telling me that should be so, besides the puritanical thought "anything involving sex is much, much worse".

This is a false equivocation fallacy. There are very key differences between catcalling and the other types of conflict you mentioned. Most notably, cat calling is morally wrong under practically any ethical system.

Kant: treats the target as a means not an end
Utilitarianism: actively decreases happiness and increases harm
Ethics of care: shows concern only with one’s self.
Divine command theory (Christian): scripture is pretty clear on uncouth speech.
Etc.

This is a false equivocation fallacy. There are very key differences between catcalling and the other types of conflict you mentioned. Most notably, cat calling is morally wrong under practically any ethical system.

Click to expand...

Wait what? In what moral system is berating/threatening/etc a random stranger morally just?

Someone being a fuckstick, regardless of whether that's through catcalls, insults, threats, or any of the million and one ways humanity has discovered to be awful to each other, is universally regarded as morally wrong. And not only that, they're all wrong for the same reasons.

So why is it that, for example, someone bumping into a random stranger on the street and spending the next minute screaming invectives about them and their parentage is unworthy of punishment, but a wolfwhistle demands immediate social and financial ruination?

Wait what? In what moral system is berating/threatening/etc a random stranger morally just?

Someone being a fuckstick, regardless of whether that's through catcalls, insults, threats, or any of the million and one ways humanity has discovered to be verbally awful to each other, is universally regarded as morally wrong. And not only that, they're all wrong for the same reasons.

So why is it that, for example, someone bumping into a random stranger on the street and spending the next minute screaming invectives about them and their parentage is unworthy of punishment, but a wolfwhistle demands immediate social and financial ruination?

Click to expand...

I mean as a business owner I wouldn't want to hire someone who shouts unprovoked invectives about me and my parentage either, but more relevantly the latter is significantly more of a social problem than the former. It certainly happens a shitload more often and taken as a whole constitutes constant harrassment. I don't know about you, but I get wolf whistles and cat calls if not every day, then definitely multiple times a week. It's fucking exhausting and something should be done about it. A fine and/or community service would do the trick nicely.

Fair enough, I suppose. There's an element of collective responsibility there that doesn't sit right with me, as dudebro #27 has no bearing or influence over the behavior of chad #19 so it doesn't make a ton of sense to punish the former harsher than otherwise because the latter is also a bellend, but I get where you're coming from at least.

This is a false equivocation fallacy. There are very key differences between catcalling and the other types of conflict you mentioned. Most notably, cat calling is morally wrong under practically any ethical system.

Kant: treats the target as a means not an end
Utilitarianism: actively decreases happiness and increases harm
Ethics of care: shows concern only with one’s self.
Divine command theory (Christian): scripture is pretty clear on uncouth speech.
Etc.

Sex has value and should only be given freely. Not pressured or coerced or forced.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware treating fast food workers like shit or being aggressive to people in traffic was morally correct according to these standards. Please, explain to me why you think a referee in a sports match doesn't feel threatened? What I see it, it's like this:

"This is false equivalence, please let me use all these rules that easily apply to people in retail being insulted or actually any of the other examples that I'm also calling a false equivalence". Let's see?
Kant: treats the target as a means not an end - easily applies to be polite and not insult someone doing their job.
Utilitarianism: actively decreases happiness and increases harm - same.
Ethics of care: shows concern only with one’s self. - same.
Divine command theory (Christian): scripture is pretty clear on uncouth speech. - unless calling the McDonalds attendant a squinty eye lying cunt for some reason doesn't hit the same don't be uncouth rule, then I'm confident the my examples apply to all of these.

The last comment is particularly hilarious in how simplistic and unrealistic it is. You're gonna make porn illegal, are you? Together with prostitution? And then maybe masturbation, since masturbating to someone without consent is "rape". Money is social coercion son, the most powerful it is. Plus, you think that human dignity and respect shouldn't be only freely given?

''Not threatened or coerced." - what does this mean exactly? Are you telling me that a catcalli isan aggression and forces a woman, against her will, to perform sexual acts, but by that logic fast food workers that are shouted at also feel forced to give everything they have to the person doing the shouting because pressure... Oh wait, we should arrest those for robbery course. How consistent.

I mean as a business owner I wouldn't want to hire someone who shouts unprovoked invectives about me and my parentage either, but more relevantly the latter is significantly more of a social problem than the former. It certainly happens a shitload more often and taken as a whole constitutes constant harrassment. I don't know about you, but I get wolf whistles and cat calls if not every day, then definitely multiple times a week. It's fucking exhausting and something should be done about it. A fine and/or community service would do the trick nicely.

Click to expand...

I'm still no seeing you defending retail and sports-related people or telemarketing, all who also deal with shitty harassment so often, being able to demand someone to be arrested.

Fair enough, I suppose. There's an element of collective responsibility there that doesn't sit right with me, as dudebro #27 has no bearing or influence over the behavior of chad #19 so it doesn't make a ton of sense to punish the former harsher than otherwise because the latter is also a bellend, but I get where you're coming from at least.

Click to expand...

I mean there would be a collective responsibility if we lived in some kind of society, but here you only get that kind of thing in small towns and communities. Otherwise you just have to kind of filter out unwanted speech(ads, strangers annoying you, 'the end is nigh' prophets of doom, you get the idea) and be aware of the subsection of unwanted speech labeled 'threats', which you shouldn't filter out. If someone's threatening you with a remotely proximate risk of being honest, go back in time like five years and buy a gun. Then you have a few more options. You can make a time paradox in which they never would have threatened you, you can gesture in the direction of your weapon, and if I'm not mistaken you can take it out.

For one, Invictus, the referee chooses his occupation knowing full well that shit's going to happen. Does that make it okay? No. But it's still a choice. The same goes for working with the mentally ill, the elderly. There are certain things that come with such a job.

For one, Invictus, the referee chooses his occupation knowing full well that shit's going to happen. Does that make it okay? No. But it's still a choice. The same goes for working with the mentally ill, the elderly. There are certain things that come with such a job.

Click to expand...

"Women choose to go out when they don't need to. If only they stayed at home. Or if they didn't war such slutty clothes". Victim blaming logic is an insidious thing. Do you blame prostitutes who suffer violence of any kind and victims of domestic abuse too, for choosing their situation?

But to sincerely compare a caretaker of people who can't help themselves to do things we dislike and disapprove to someone that's taking insults by people that should fucking know better just for doing their job is a terrible choice.

It's a false choice, specially if you're talking retail and telemarketing people, incredibly tiresome and exhausting mentally and physically jobs that are a lot of times the only open door for people with either a lack of specialized skills or studies, or with no job experience.

Pursuing the differing examples is a red herring, but I'll simply state that the examples you're giving don't match the ethical theories the way cat calling does. Examples can be given where your other examples fail those theories. Cat calling is very different than simply being angry with someone or insulting them.

Cat calling is a threat. It threatens legitimate harm against another person. You're pointing to all these other examples and asking why we treat cat calling differently? We shouldn't. Just as if a customer was becoming a disturbance in your store you call the police, or someone threatens your safety, or someone threatens to steal something, you call the police.

There is a difference between someone being a jerk to you versus some bulky guy coming over to you and saying, "That's a nice watch you got there. It'd look real good on my wrist. Why don't you give to me?"

Cat calling is like the latter, not the former.

Edit: And in case it isn't obvious, it's generally accepted that your right to be a jerk ends when you threaten harm against another person.

I mean there would be a collective responsibility if we lived in some kind of society, but here you only get that kind of thing in small towns and communities.

Click to expand...

What's that have to do with what I said?

Literally, the idea put forth was "on its own, X is fine, but because lots of people do X, anyone who does X needs to be punished". That's literally "I am going to punish someone because of the actions of other people", as if the punished is somehow responsible for the actions of the rest of the group.

And that's a pretty repugnant idea that flies in the face of personal autonomy/responsibility as well as the foundational principles of modern liberal justice systems (specifically, that fault corresponds with choice).

I get why there'd be arguments for it, as the idea of imposing restrictions on unpleasant interactions is certainly appealing, especially to the lizard brain, but it crosses several lines whose inviolability is foundational to liberal societies. As such, it doesn't sit right with me.

Rape threats are legitimate things that happen, and should be taken just as if not more seriously than death threats. But some dude shouting "nice ass" or "show us your tits love" at a woman walking past isn't a rape threat. It's a guy being a horny little cockgoblin, and while he deserves to choke on his own testicles, he's not threatening the woman at all. He's just being a selfish dickwaffle.

Edit: to clarify, it's very possible for a situation where a man is catcalling and escalates to rape threats, and if that happens it needs to be treated as such instead of dismissed as catcalling, but that's why we already have laws about threats, violence and rape.

Literally, the idea put forth was "on its own, X is fine, but because lots of people do X, anyone who does X needs to be punished". That's literally "I am going to punish someone because of the actions of other people", as if the punished is somehow responsible for the actions of the rest of the group.

And that's a pretty repugnant idea that flies in the face of personal autonomy/responsibility as well as the foundational principles of modern liberal justice systems (specifically, that fault corresponds with choice).

I get why there'd be arguments for it, as the idea of imposing restrictions on unpleasant interactions is certainly appealing, especially to the lizard brain, but it crosses several lines whose inviolability is foundational to liberal societies. As such, it doesn't sit right with me.

A cat call is not a rape threat, let's be clear here.

Rape threats are legitimate things that happen, and should be taken just as if not more seriously than death threats. But some dude shouting "nice ass" or "show us your tits love" at a woman walking past isn't a rape threat. It's a guy being a horny little cockgoblin, and while he deserves to choke on his own testicles, he's not threatening the woman at all. He's just being a selfish dickwaffle.

Click to expand...

Based on the fact that women (and not just a small amount but the majority) don’t feel like they can tell men in those situations “no” or “fuck off” without the fear the man becoming violent means it’s a threat just as valid as an explicit “I’m going to rape you.”

The example of the watch, he’s not explicitly saying he’s going to steal it from you, but you know there’s a decent chance he could.

In the same way, women (based on testimonies) feel that fear when a guy cat calls. So, yes, it is a threat. Even if they don’t intend to do anything the threat is enough.

Based on the fact that women (and not just a small amount but the majority) don’t feel like they can tell men in those situations “no” or “fuck off” without the fear the man becoming violent means it’s a threat just as valid as an explicit “I’m going to rape you.”

The example of the watch, he’s not explicitly saying he’s going to steal it from you, but you know there’s a decent chance he could.

In the same way, women (based on testimonies) feel that fear when a guy cat calls. So, yes, it is a threat. Even if they don’t intend to do anything the threat is enough.

Click to expand...

But... It's not a threat. It can become one, certainly, such as if the guy doesn't allow her to leave, but in and of itself, it's not a threat. In exactly the same way me bumping into you and calling you a fucking retard is also not a threat. It's unpleasant and assholeish, but there's no threat being made.

We already have laws that cover the making of threats, violence, and rape, and any actual threats need to be punished, but an unpleasant comment does not a threat make.

/shrug Maybe I'm just weird, but running with "it's illegal to be an asshole" seems likely to end with the whole human race in jail.

Based on the fact that women (and not just a small amount but the majority) don’t feel like they can tell men in those situations “no” or “fuck off” without the fear the man becoming violent means it’s a threat just as valid as an explicit “I’m going to rape you.”

The example of the watch, he’s not explicitly saying he’s going to steal it from you, but you know there’s a decent chance he could.

In the same way, women (based on testimonies) feel that fear when a guy cat calls. So, yes, it is a threat. Even if they don’t intend to do anything the threat is enough.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that retail workers can just tell aggressive clients to fuck off? And won't lose their job or be hit? Do you want me to link to a dozen or so incidents where they did just get hit? People get fucking shot at McDonald's because of McNuggets. Escalation is not only possible, it happens a lot.

I'm still not seeing you saying that the police should come in and arrest every rude and aggressive client that doesn't cross the line.

I also remember asking you to answer me why it was a false equivalence. You brought your primary education in philosophy into this. Stick to it, and answer me how it does not apply to all these definitions you used.

@Lindsey@The Iron Rose Do you feel threatened physically by cat calling? How do you define cat calling and how does it (if it does) differentiate from a rape threat?

Click to expand...

You're gonna have a lot of success in Law School. Don't forget to use this when your teacher asks about what constitutes a crime. "A crime is entirely defined by how someone feels about a certain action that they were involved with."

@Lindsey@The Iron Rose Do you feel threatened physically by cat calling? How do you define cat calling and how does it (if it does) differentiate from a rape threat?

Click to expand...

First off, I want to point out we are going wildly off topic and may want to move these last few pages to a new thread. This has very little to do with the 2020 elections.

And this is a really hard question to answer for me.

Catcalling started really early for me. It was far more common for me to be catcalled when I was 11-15 than now (26). I want to point out that I, in no way, looked 18 when I was a teen, as I barely look like I'm in my 20s now.

When you are in your pre-teens and are getting cat-called by adult men, it is incredibly threatening. You barely know what sex is, you are already massively uncomfortable with your body changing, and you just don't understand why this is happening. The men who are doing this are not cat-calling you just because they think you are attractive... but because you are young, innocent and an easy target.

As I got older and refused to deal with as much shit (and perfected my resting bitch face), the cat-calling dropped off. This to me shows that these people don't really care what you look like, but do it as a power move against those weaker than them. Especially as it dropped even further as I'm usually in the presence of a man (my boyfriend).

Cat-calling can be a ton of different things. Whistling, honking and comments while walking down the street. I've also had people pull over with their cars and try to talk to me, men following me trying to get me to respond to their cat-calls, or straight up trying to touch me. All of these more 'advanced' threats all started with cat-calls.

I will say, there have been some more wholesome catcalls or at least not as creepy ones. A few times I've had people comment that I am beautiful, and move on. I've also had someone get out of their car in a parking lot, make a nice comment and hand me their phone number, smile and then depart. The big thing is how they present themselves, and what they are looking in return. A nice and decent person (and one who is a sweet talker), makes things far less creepy. These are far the minority though.

My issue with cat-calls, and why people should often be shamed for doing them, is who they are targeting and why. It's a power move and it's sickening and insulting. They don't want you as a person but as an object.

Gee the next time a man shouts how badly he wants to fuck my ass in an alleyway I'll just politely decline and let him know the attention is unwelcome, that's a good idea that definitely won't get me raped.

Click to expand...

Just so I am clear, you are suggesting that I am equating crude or obnoxious behavior in a public space with a man making a declared statement of intent to rape you in a hypothetical shady alley.

If you want to put words in my mouth let's carry the hypothetical scenario forward. Such a man would already be guilty of assault. But as I suspect you wouldn't stop and turn around to pick up identifiable information, what further charges do you desire to bring against a man you're not actually going to charge?

So the man that didn't get charged with earned assault gets off, but at least we fire the guy overheard making a dick joke to a coworker.

On the topic of mere words - even assuming that every man will stop when a woman asks them to lay off the wolf whistles/suggestive jokes/propositions for sex, if every/many men take this approach, then women would face a sustained stream of such aggravating horseshit i.e. harassment by your own definition. The fact that it is produced by many different people and not any one person doesn't make it better; indeed it makes it worse, since it's inescapable.

Click to expand...

Every/many man would do no such thing, because most men are confined by personal and social codes that prohibit such behavior. The idea that all men are just itching to scream obscenities at passerby is both absurd and offensive... but hey, if that's the view you want to hold then by all means.

Although you yourself point out that you yourself nor anyone you know behaves that way, so there you go.

That said no, harassment means what it means. I nor anyone else can be guilty of a repeated offense that we have not ourselves repeated. Especially as the issue is that the behavior itself is not illegal - Iron Rose's words in my mouth excluded. It is not illegal to make a crude joke or ask someone if they want to do X. What is illegal it to harass them about it, and one question or overheard comment is not harassment.

That is one of the factors a lot of guys don't immediately pick up on; the size/weight/strength difference can have a really big impact on just about any interaction.

Click to expand...

True. And I always advise young men that legality aside, one should always pay heed to this. Do not start up a conversation with a girl you are interested in on an empty elevator, much less ask her out, for example. In your head, you are thinking it is a private space and so if she declines you will not be embarassed publicly; for her it is quite a different situation.

One big problem here is both sexes have now been raised to consider sexual differences to be immaterial. Yes it's absurd, but plenty of young women genuinely believe that they could at least incapacitate the average man, which has the opposite effect of men discounting the very genuine perceived threat that the average man could genuinely be to a woman, especially in a private space. As a big man myself, I am very conscious to always maintain comfortable personal space around people I am talking to, to keep my voice calm, etc. But this is something that comes from experience and social awareness, and it is wrong for men to be penalized as if they were all a step from becomming the man in the shady alley because their office etiquette is born from inexperience or being socially retarded. Or because some third party didn't like what they overheard.

Edit: Lindsey's point regarding behavior deliberately and explicitly aimed at minors is noted. Fair enough, though I'd say that's a distinction that does already exist at least conceptually, and so isn't fundamentally changing legal system if cracked down on.

Last edited: Mar 15, 2019 at 2:45 AM

You know you're something when you can line up Arthellion, DR, and Vlad on the same side ~ Nazgus

Just so I am clear, you are suggesting that I am equating crude or obnoxious behavior in a public space with a man making a declared statement of intent to rape you in a hypothetical shady alley.

If you want to put words in my mouth let's carry the hypothetical scenario forward. Such a man would already be guilty of assault. But as I suspect you wouldn't stop and turn around to pick up identifiable information, what further charges do you desire to bring against a man you're not actually going to charge?

So the man that didn't get charged with earned assault gets off, but at least we fire the guy overheard making a dick joke to a coworker.

Click to expand...

Er, no, I am not putting words in your mouth at all. I'm saying that I don't believe I can safely ask men who catcall me to stop without running the risk of violence being done against me. It's simply not safe for me, or for most women to do so.

All I want is a law on the books to discourage catcalling specifically. There's a quantifiable difference between street harrassment and crude jokes or prepositions - no reasonable actor ought to believe such prepositions are welcome. Given that catcalling occurs to women so frequently, and the sheer frequency makes even the act of walking around my city onerous and unpleasant, I believe that behaviour should be criminalized. I don't think anyone should go to jail for it, but I believe a fine or community service at, say, a women's shelter or other such organization would be appropriate. I am referring to wolf whistles, shouted obscenities, and street harrassment. I am not referring to anything else.

However, I don't believe that effective prosecution of street harrassment is ever likely to become a thing. I don't think it's something that can be effectively addressed by the legal system. Still, having a law on the books may discourage the behaviour especially if combined with a PR campaign in municipalities (lol like that'll ever happen).

However, I don't believe that effective prosecution of street harrassment is ever likely to become a thing. I don't think it's something that can be effectively addressed by the legal system.

Click to expand...

Pretty much any law restricting speech is always incredibly thorny to deal with. I doubt any law could address anything beyond the most extreme and threatening forms of it. It's all well and good to try and ban wolf whistles, but finding a good way to legally define what a wolf whistle is and how it's legally distinct from normal whistling sounds like it would be a titanic mess. And that's not even getting into the potential chilling effect issues, or the inevitable cases of people overreacting or trying to abuse the new law. My office already has to deal with crap like supervisors getting yelled at by customers who are threatening to sue us because an employee called her "Ma'am" and she thinks that counts as sexual harassment.

Ultimately (outside the most extreme cases) it's a cultural battle, not a legal one. One that I think is overall shifting in the right direction, just not fast enough.

I mean. I agree. Explicitly defining harassment on the verbal level and the difference between that and a respectful proposition would fix a lot of things.

I’d argue a lot of the reasons behind a lot of sexual harassment is that, culturally, it has been unacceptable to walk up to a person and ask for sex. So you have only idiots doing it in a assholish manner.

Creating a culture that values openness on sex and consent will do a lot to get rid of harassment imo. It should be perfectly acceptable to go up to someone you find attractive and ask for sex. If they say no, anything further is harassment.

The issues that face that though is 1st amendment, and ingrained cultural mentalities.etc but at the very least the latter can be changed over time.

Click to expand...

Have to agree with this. I think a lot of harassment ultimately stems from old idea that it's improper for women to show interest in sex. It's not a surprise sexual harassment became a huge issue when 60 years ago cultural norms said that even if a woman was genuinely interested she had to say no the first three or four times or risk being labelled a slut. The idea that "no" means anything other than a clear and unambiguous "no" is just asking for trouble.